It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

G Edward Griffin - help me prove chemtails exist

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Uncinus
 


what the levels are set for being safe is not an issue here the fact that 19 out of 30 soil samples exceed that level is a valid point and shows that there are soil samples showing unusually high amounts of barium can you contest that point?


That list is from here:
www.spelthorne.gov.uk...

And explained there:


Barium (Ba) is found in concentrations exceeding the intervention level of the
Corrected New Dutch list in 19 samples: R03, R05, R08, R09, R11, R12, R13,
R15, R17, R19, R20, R21, R22, R23, R24, R26, R27, R28 and R30. Potential
sources of Barium include: paints and roof felting (CLR 8, 2002). It is known that
inert and domestic waste were deposited in the site prior to its designation as a
residential area, and there is evidence of commercial waste such as brick and
concrete present in samples. Therefore it is likely that the Barium has been
derived from commercial waste


Using this as evidence of barium spraying is just wrong. It's an investigation of a residential area, on top of a decades old waste dump, on top of an old gravel pit. It's the exact type of place you'd expect to find soil contamination.

Why did you list those test results totally out of context? Where did you see them?

edit on 27-5-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2011 by Uncinus because: (residential area)




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


it states that it is a probable source of the contamination but that fact is not proven scientifically and i have to say how quickly you got that information to hand also i would like to point out that when looking for a source they would not have included the air spraying as a valid source because when looking for contaminates you look at the ground do you not?

Another point i would like to make here is that i have spent my afternoon looking for soil and water samples test results since 1980 to 2011 and do you know how many i found none not one any site that had that kind of information when you click the link error 404 comes up.
Now dose that not seam strange that in 160 pages of links not one can you enter to look at results if there is no problem then why are the results not in the public domain?

in a 30 year period you would think that thousand upon thousands would have been done so how come we can't see the results what is being hidden from us i wonder perhaps this is why we get asked so often to show soil or water test results showing increased barium level above the safe limit.
that report was the only hit i had with soil samples must have slipped through the net perhaps thats why you came up with the site so quickly did it pose a threat ?

also i would like to point out that in no way did i take them out of context i showed the results as they appeared on the site and pointed out that they where above the EPA safe levels and that was a cause for concern if i had posted that it was the results of planes spraying[which i did not]then i could understand your comment so explain to me how i took it out of context?
edit on 27-5-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


you know I am on the "chemtrails are fantasy" side, but I am also on the truth side. So please do keep us informed of your samples and the results. At least you are doing something about it other than talking on the internet. For that you have my admiration.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 

It would be very helpful to all of us, if you were to use some capitol letters, periods, and paragraphs....if you want us to understand what you are communicating.
I am having trouble understanding what you're trying to say.
Please, this is not an insult......it is just an observation, and a friendly suggestion.

Searching for info on the internet can often become a tricky skill of "sleuthing".

Do you use the search techniques recommended by your search engine ?
Google search tips... (link)

Searching the net can be an art....or a PITA.


edit on 27-5-2011 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


thankyou for your kind words and i will inform you of the results i get from the samples 5 to 10 day's i hope as tomorrow i will take a walk and take at least 40 samples in areas that have little or no chance of being contaminated by industrial sources.
It just saddens me that the internet is supposed to be a free exchange of information the world at your finger tips and yet when you want something as simple as soil and water test results its not available.If i was looking for top secret documents i could understand not finding them but simple test results in a 30 year period stinks.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I think you are missing the point. Griffin is not trying to convince government shills. He's trying to convince regular folk.

Hence gathering evidence would be a good idea. No? So why don't you do it? Why does nobody do it?


What Griffin suggests has my full support. I wasn't saying Griffin was being argumentative, just the person who started the thread....and I was replying to a post he later made calling someone else argumentative. In retrospect, I really shouldn't have bothered, lol.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


How much barium would you expect to find in soil? Try Google Books:

www.google.com...

This one, from 1977, gives the expected ranges for a wide variety of locations. See pages 99-104
books.google.com...=onepage&q=barium%20soil%20ppm&f=false

Seems like anything from 10 to 1000 ppm is a normal range. So what do your tests indicate?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
So are any chemtrail believers going to give it a go? There really is a lack of tangible evidence, and it seems like if this really is such a huge conspiracy then it should be relatively simple to get concrete evidence to back it up.


No, they are not.

Just as not one actually posted a hypothesis in response to my request (Thermo Klein at least tried in part)
"Chemtrail" advocates and believers, which of you will state your hypothesis?, not one will undertake the task even for one day.

I actually did it in a different thread (I have the photos) for several periods over a weekend, and observed intemittent contrails, persistent contrails, the inflow of natural cirrus, and the interaction of cirrus and contrails.

It doesn't make any difference in the "chemtrail" doctrine, because "faith" needs no proof; you just have to believe.

'fraid you're just tiltin' at windmills.

jw



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 

The problem here is not that we don't have prof after all we see that it is real and to us that is enough


If that doesn't answer the underlying question, nothing will. "Chemtrail" faithful believe what they want because belief alone is enough. Who needs proof?

This is why we are where we are today: scared of our own shadows, incapable of reasoned analysis, due to a complete disregard for facts.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I think you are missing the point. Griffin is not trying to convince government shills. He's trying to convince regular folk.

Hence gathering evidence would be a good idea. No? So why don't you do it? Why does nobody do it?


What Griffin suggests has my full support. I wasn't saying Griffin was being argumentative, just the person who started the thread....and I was replying to a post he later made calling someone else argumentative. In retrospect, I really shouldn't have bothered, lol.


So when their "movie" suggests that it is not normal to find aluminum and barium in the ground, so you support that?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
No evidence, No Chemtrails, No conspiracy.

Stop wasting time with these useless threads.

Move onto something worthy of Investigation.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I think you are missing the point. Griffin is not trying to convince government shills. He's trying to convince regular folk.

Hence gathering evidence would be a good idea. No? So why don't you do it? Why does nobody do it?


What Griffin suggests has my full support. I wasn't saying Griffin was being argumentative, just the person who started the thread....and I was replying to a post he later made calling someone else argumentative. In retrospect, I really shouldn't have bothered, lol.


So when their "movie" suggests that it is not normal to find aluminum and barium in the ground, so you support that?


I have said several times on various threads already that I do not get into discussions on ATS about 9/11 or chemtrails. I made this decision because there is absolutely no point, and I won't be goaded into a discussion by you or anyone else. The tone of your post speaks volumes.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
It was a simple yes/no question that cuts directly to the heart. You are more concerned about "tone" and your feelings, than you are about knowledge, facts and reality.

There is a quote by a writer named Edward Abbey that applies to many chemtrailers ""Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion."

You support G Edward Griffin because his film,, and the chemtrail religion, makes you feel better and gives you validation. Do facts and science support it? Nope not at all. But chemtrailers avoid that like the plague.

Here is something to chew on. In that movie, that take a soil sample and get all upset because it showed 1% Aluminum. But if an average soil amount is 8% aluminum, were they upset because it was so low?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


But you can't prove the source of the barium, so your point in using a list like this is moot.
Show something that proves the barium in the water came from an airplane. Then you have a case.
As to why the EPA says one thing and some other country says another, what proof that you have that the EPA's is wrong? Or that some other countries is better?
There are safety limits put on all types of things. What is acceptable to one might not be acceptable to another. For instance, there is an acceptable number of bug parts per jar of peanut butter. To me, and probably most people, the acceptable level would be zero. But it's there, because bugs and their parts are very hard to exclude from any food source. Does it means it is not safe? No. If just means there is bug parts.
The thing you need to look at is what level of barium is toxic. Not just there, but actually harmful. You don't do that with your numbers.
Have you looked up the geology of the area that the wells were in? If barium is not found in the geology around the wells, then any amount of barium would be considered contamination. Or any amount over the expected amount. That is something that factors in to this type of list. What is above normal and expected is all this list shows. Can you prove it was from "chemtrails"?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


i see you hold to double standards then after all on the many posts that we have bashed heads on you pick and choose the bits from the post you want to quote and dismiss or sidestep the rest and here you are attacking a member who happens to do the same to you.


When was the last time you quoted an entire post? Why didn't you quote the bits of my post where you say I did this?




You have an answer for every thing we may have to say apart from if it has truth to it and then you attack the source of that information.


What have you said that is the truth??


But that small gap in your argument aside - if information is not independently verifiable then the source of it become part of establishing just how good the information is.

So if you have something you say is "the truth", and it comes from somewhere that regularly spouts rubbish, people are entitled to use the source as part of their decision making process as to whether they accept hte information as true, reliable, etc.


The problem here is not that we don't have prof after all we see that it is real and to us that is enough


thank you for confirming all my prejudices about you and chemmies in general - you have completely vindicated my OP!!


its your side that keeps asking for prof which brings me to this quote.
All those who know are expected to remain silent. All of those who suspect are either faced with trying to prove the virtually unprovable or are faced with good enough reasons to remain silent.


What about tit? It is arrant nonsense - there is no evidence to support it (what a surprise) - it has been invented by whoever wrote it (was it you - is that why you haven't ascribed it?) as an excuse for hte lack of evidence.

It is a perfect summary of a typical conspiracy meme - "There's no evidence because it is all covered up" - that I've seen written somewhere - the lack of evidence becomes "proof" that there's a conspiracy to hide hte evidence!

It's just ridiculous.



so fellow members don't be downhearted they may attack you and insult you but these are common traits found in someone who lies and knows they are lying keep posting keep pointing it out to others the amount of flags this subject gets with the same faces in thread shows you that they want this subject to die a death.


That makes no sense at all!!


There - I quoted your entire post



edit on 28-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by EyeDontKnow
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


Searching for info on the internet can often become a tricky skill of "sleuthing".

Do you use the search techniques recommended by your search engine ?
Google search tips... (link)

Searching the net can be an art....or a PITA.

Here's the other half....
www.google.com...



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by Aloysius the GaulPROVE ME WRONG


edit on 26-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

You... missed the point.... completely.

You already declared that you will reject out of hand any kind of proof from anybody, even without first poisoning the well yourself.


Well how do you know proof and evidence would be rejected?? So far there hasnt been any proof or evidence offered up, not at all since 1998.

Sure, lots of conjecture, speculation, "what if", "could be", "look up" and a never ending amount of ignorance regarding science, aviation and meteorology however. Thats why everything has been explainable, rejectable and debunkable.

How many times have we seen chemtrailers post something utterly ridiculous, and then get their feelings hurt when it gets exposed for what it really was. If chemtrailers do not want their speculation debunked so fast, maybe if they did more research and investigating before making posts, they would not get made to look so foolish.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join